They're Not Old Enough!

Earlier this year, when I was beginning to take Civics & Economics at school, our teacher showed us an episode of a television program titled The West Wing. The show itself was well-written; even if I didn't know it was penned by Aaron Sorkin, I'd recognize his ultra-fast dialogue anywhere, but it was good dialogue.

The problem was that it was the sixth episode or so, and I had no idea what the hell was going on. Later I mentioned this to my maternal grandmother on the phone and she said something about the "themes" being something I'd "come to appreciate more as I gained age and, therefore, maturity." OK, Grandma, I love you, but this is a common mistake. Trust me, plenty of teenagers don't realize the finer side of art, nor do plenty of younger children and a frightening number of adults. But some adults (not all) consistently belittle us. For example, I was unscathed by R-rated movies by age thirteen. I learned most swearwords early on. And I can fully well understand most forms of art without having to wait.

They seem to think us younger than we are. I first saw a PG-13 movie, as I recall, at age eight. It was Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, which I remember being pretty cool. Sure, I had forgotten most of it by the time I decided to watch it again at age eleven. But eleven-year-olds are not toddlers. They can understand things perfectly well. One thing I think turns many kids off of the love of reading would be English assignments that suck the life out of the written word, i.e. "What do you think the author meant?" I think the author meant what they said, or if not, then it either wasn't clear enough writing or it will strike us later without it being shoved in our faces. Stephen King compared these things to the golden goose. Once killed and butchered, it won't produce any more golden eggs. Or appeal to youth. We can figure stuff out if properly motivated and if given a fair chance.

Anyhow, I'm much more mature than most people my age. Sillier, sure, but that is actually part of my maturity. I know that it's good to laugh and have fun instead of being dull and doing the bare minimum in life. In addition, I'm beyond stupid things like perversion and bigotry. In some senses I am much more intelligent than most of these herd-sheep. Moreover, I understand people to a further extent than many, despite my mother's frantic claims of my social inadequacy. Generally, I can read faces and know the safest thing to say. And being eloquent doesn't hurt. I can back up most of my arguments and find the weaknesses in those of others. That's why I need to join Debate in the fall, if I can. In the meantime, Ethics sounds interesting, but I need to find out how to get into that.

So basically, youth does not equal stupidity or immaturity, or, of course, lack of ability to appreciate the finer things in life.

But They Had a Bad Day!

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." - Bill Cosby

---

Often, when a person is rude for no apparent reason, the reason ends up being that the person had a bad day, or something of sorts. That may float certain boats, but I think it's a poppycock excuse for poor social conduct. If I were an adult and had a no-show day for a corporate job, would my boss take "I had a bad day" for an excuse? If I have to go to a funeral, that is one thing; but simply not feeling like being decent enough to show up to work or to be sincere to peers is a crappy reason if I ever heard one. What if Barack Obama did not show up for a war council (or whatever) because he mentally didn't feel like it? Precisely!

Part of this, I think, is what many people seem to feel: the need to be dramatic. I'm rather certain a lot of people do it because they can, expecting me to shrug it off and say, "Oh, it's OK." I may be a bit of a bottler, but I would agree that if feelings come out, they must do so in a nonexplosive manner. Channeling is the best way, and whoever accuses the output of appropriate channeling of being "dark" or what-have-you ought to be ignored, because people like that will always exist.

Anyhow, I need my tea. I might come on later....

--- Lewis

That's Mister Winter to You!

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." - Jesus Christ (I think)

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." - Old saying

"All animals are equal, however, some animals are more equal than others." - Animal Farm by George Orwell

"...but when you're stupid, there's nothing that can be done." - Eric Idle

"Call me Ahab." - Moby-Dick by Herman Melville, which I need to read

---

Hey guys! It's time to talk about respect. You may call me Lewis or whatever; the title was coined via sarcasm. Where did this whole name-address thing come in? I always intend to have people address me casually. I mean, really. Say I meet President Obama (which would be pretty cool; he's a good man). Realistically I would call him Mr. President, Sir, etc. But in my ideal world (one I highly doubt will ever fully bear fruit) Barack and I would be equals, at least on a human level and on a verbal. I cannot fathom why first names are so bad! I'm not calling anyone a moron. Even my own parents have been zombified by this restriction. They are family! Take the famil root and insert it to create the term familiar. Atticus Finch comes to mind here. Brilliant man; we need more people like that in the real world. I understand that teachers are most likely not allowed to become familiar with students. But neighbors and "friends" who insist on being Mister-Missus-Whatblah instead of simple names? It baffles me on both the basic and deep levels. Where did this start? Why? When? How? Why??

I chuckle at those who think they are my superiors. Forsooth, they might have more life experience and perhaps a few college degrees they may or may not have earned properly, but does that make them humanly better than we "minors"? Not only is it arrogant, it's also insulting. I do not take offense - I only scoff at their ignorance - but I would not blame a child for becoming annoyed at such preposterous statements. Age itself does not elevate one over others. All people are people, and while moral codes do apply in my view to determine true scrupulous mettle, everyone is equal in one way or another. I have literally, honest-to-the-gods been told by one adult that he was my superior, and by another that she was smarter than I. Very unprofessional in both cases. Not that I'm particularly ruffled: sometimes it is best just to not interact with idiotic people, but to either avoid them or to watch them fumble about in a metaphorical fish bowl. As I say, pride is the sage's ascension and the fool's downfall. I have no net to hold when they fall.

And I regret naught.

Good-day!

- Lewis

Give More, Get Less

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." - John F. Kennedy

Surprisingly, this is not a post about selfless generosity; I just like that quote. It's a post about public schools in my county and what ensues. Not the whole hell-storm - that will come sooner or later in a separate post, I should think - but the levels of education. It is said that home-schoolers learn more, which I have no reason to doubt. While I may like my school, I do not like the county a bit: it is as a solid branch in a rotten tree. The curriculum is rushed and sloppy and has more the intention of passing us than actually teaching us. What use is it to learn a bit of something and then forget it? They don't take the time to engrave things into us, only to imprint them long enough to score a test. My point is this, plain and simple:

Learning should not be for the purpose of passing, but for learning in itself.

In a way, it's like having a sign reading that it has sharp edges. Might as well not be there. I loved my World History teacher last year, Chaney (no "Mr." required, as he was pretty laid-back) - but the course itself was the entire history of the world crunched into nine weeks, so there was a week on Greek myth, a week on Chinese dynasties, one on World War II, etc. Not enough for elaboration. In English we don't fully read many books - we read excerpts and then watch the movie most of the time. Don't even get me started on science! Ugh.

I am the rare case of someone who wishes to relearn what was previously presented in forgettable ways. The Modern Scholar audio series is good for that. I wish I could have at some point experienced the benefits of a home-schooled life. Not only do I learn more and learn it in more effective ways, but I have much more free time and less necessity to encounter lower types of people (not judging by race or class, but by mental and moral values). I ride the bus with many boisterous and uneducated persons, which I blame on lack of independent reading. It drives me bonkers to see people confuse the possessive "your" with the you-are contraction. Some do it for convenience, but many are honestly that ignorant. Most kids go along with the grow-up-and-get-out philosophy. They tend to hate school. I like school in theory, but Wake County is just ridiculous. I always say, If you race through life, you'll find the finish line fast enough (death). I'm a rose-smeller and proud of it.

I continue to educate myself on the things which interest me and do me well, even though we can only take so many classes. Most are core, as they don't seem to give a damn about arts or anything that sticks.

I've been a captive of the system and I have nearly broken my bonds (that will come to a head in college, I hope), and I am learning other things.

For further reading on unschooling, I recommend my friend Kate's post: http://amateurishramblings.blogspot.com/2011/09/definition-of-unschooling.html

Bonsoir!

- Lewis